The Culture of Asia article includes a template Template:Asia in topic which gives links to articles such as Culture of Iraq. However, it also included red links to Culture of the West Bank and Culture of the Gaza Strip, whereas there is an appropriate article, Palestinian culture, which should in fact be linked to. As an immediate fix I have created the two red-linked articles as redirects to that, but how can the root problem be fixed? The template looks technically very complicated, the Templates FAQ is no help, and i simply have no idea how to proceed or indeed whether the problem is replicated over a whole range of "Asia in..." template applications. Help! Palmiro | Talk04:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When using Wiki:Babel (see the example) - Why doesn't "Uk" link to Ukrainian Language section while "En" does link to English language section? I tried to find an answer to this for an hour and am finally hoping that someone can help. Thanks--Riurik08:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've installed MediaWiki in my office. In the recent changes page, there's a red exclamation mark for each change. I've looked in the [MediaWiki help] but the mark isn't even mentioned there. What could it mean, and why isn't it documented? Thanks Gil_mo10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I started archiving my talk pages (pushing 50k) and I put "watch this page" on everything I working on, then I noticed my new archives were red link on my Watch list. I clicked on the link. My efforts there all right. Would it be a fair statement that sometimes the WP server tasks get stacked up, so that in time all will be Ok on my new page(s)? User:AlMac|(talk)11:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is some caching going on. To force the Wikipedia servers to purge the cache, append "?action=purge" to the end of the URL. enochlau (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you archive a talk page to a page named "user talk:AlMac/anything" (which is typical) this page is the talk page for a page named "user:AlMac/anything" which likely does not exist. If you watch such a page the user page (not the talk page) shows on your watchlist, and since only the talk page exists the user page is a red link. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Define Portal
I just discovered WP Portals. (I am forever stumbling over wonderful stuff here). Would it be correct to say that a Portal is a directory of all articles on a related theme, to make it easier to navigage them than having humongous link farms on each and every article in the collection? User:AlMac|(talk)11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing an article where the source text has no newlines between sentences in paragraphs, but would prefer that it did.
(My own fault - it originally had just a few paragraphs of text, and without newlines - so I continued in that style.)
So I'm wondering - what is the "cost" of changing such details - is it worth bothering with?
If so, do I do a single separate edit with reformatting?
Or is it better to insert newlines in a paragraph when I edit that paragraph? Or does that muck up the diff feature or something?
Making this change will show up as a difference, and will permanently appear as a change in the history of the article (so takes a database update). I'd suggest not doing this at all, but certainly not as its own change. One reason to not have newlines after every sentence is that various formatting functions are sensitive to line breaks (indent, bullets, etc.). Getting in the habit of not using linebreaks for each sentence is probably not a bad idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using images from wikipedia article in a different language
I'd like to use an image from a dutch article in an english article. I assume I should reupload the image to the english server, right? How should I cite the copyright info? Thanks for any help, sorry if this question is addressed somewhere else, but I couldn't find it. --Osbojos14:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to reupload it here, if you want to use it. You need to provide the images with English language copyright tags that cover the Dutch ones and copy its source information as well. If either of these is missing, they need to be tracked down before you can use it. If the image is available under a free license (like GFDL or PD), you can upload it to the commons. Uploading to the commons allows for use in ALL Wikimedia projects without uploading multiple times. Can you tell us what image you are talking about? - Mgm|(talk)16:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of things I can use for my userbox? Like that I use Mozilla Firefox, I welcome newcomers and am apart of WikiProjects? --Thorpe | talk17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to download Bonzi Buddy(the purple gorilla), but when I click on "Download Bonzi Buddy" either nothing happens, or it just erases the page. How can I download Bonzi Buddy?
Sometimes I read an article about an individual, organization, or other topic, and it is clear by the Anglo-Saxon name that one of the English-speaking countries is referrred to, but the article does not indicate. Is there a guideline as to how, where, and to what degree such articles should be placed in context into the country they refer to? I have looked around in FAQs and the Manual of Style, and other references, but I cannot find such (there is a lot of reference material!) SailorfromNH21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Example: "Clint Bolick is the President and General Counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, a national nonprofit educational policy group advocating school choice programs across the country. Bolick is a co-founder of the Institute for Justice, where he currently serves as counsel for strategic litigation." (from Clint Bolick). Note that as an American I recognize enough references to infer the subject is an American, others might not. SailorfromNH22:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example? Policy is to avoid geographical ambiguity by being clear in the text. Fix it if you find it, or ask on the talk page and one of the contributors will doubtless be able to clarify. Along the same vein, how is the sailing in New Hebrides at this time of year? alteripse21:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know how to cite in my references section a posting on a bulletin board (not Usenet). Could somebody give me an example? --Joe King22:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
new infobox
I would like to create an infobox for the Califonia community colleges, but also want to avoid the infobox for American Universities because some of the fields are inappropriate (e.g., graduate enrollment). How can I create a new infobox? –Matt22:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read that already, but it looks like a catalog of examples, rather than a how-to guide for creating and using new infoboxes. In any case, I couldn't figure out how to create a new infobox from there. –Matt04:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to put HTML forms on user pages? My attempts have only produced source listings rather than active forms. I've noticed that Help:HTML_in_wikitext does not list <form></form> as permitted. Perhaps there is an alternative? <Puck00:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Google site search form with radio buttons for sites I often use for references. It is hosted here for now. I'd like to put a copy on my user page so I have it handy while I'm working on stuff. <Puck08:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I may have found what I'm looking for: Help:Inputbox. I don't know if it will be applicable for what I want to do, but in case anyone else come here looking for information before this pages gets archived I'm putting this here.--◀Pucktalk▶22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be some confusion over very similar article names. There is a Snow_day & a Snow_Day article. One does refer to the other one, but they are only different by the small/capital D of "day". I am not sure what to do, or how to change. Snow_day -- Snow_Day--Drussel304:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can pick one to be the actual article (probably Snow day if they're really both about getting a day off due to snow), merge in text from the other one, and change the unwanted one to a redirect; syntax is #REDIRECT [[otherarticlename]] Elf | Talk04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are (2) seperate articles that need to have (2) entries. What is the process for renaming them, etc. My Guess would be: Snow_day_movie or something like that. Please help--Drussel305:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are two distinct articles but there is no need for a disambiguation page. I put a disambigatuon notice at the top of each article - readers should find their desired location quickly enough now.--Commander Keane06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oil
How much oil is left in the world and when will it run out
I've got a bit of a query regarding Images. I'm writing an article about an educational system, and I would like to include a picture of the system's crest. Now I understand from reading this FAQ, and other pages that the creator of the image is required to release it to free domain for it to be able to be included. I remember from a discussion on another article's talk page (the name escapes me now) that such a declaration can be requested for in an e-mail and is valid. As this is the first time that I'm doing this, I'd appreciate a bit of advice as to the type of e-mail request to write and what exactly is required. Thanks in advance.
I stumbled across User:Deeceevoice and thought the sentiments were contrary to the "Be Nice and considerate of other people sensibilities" sense of WP that I been finding elsewhere. As a newbie, I feel I not yet learned enough about policy line crossing to know what's acceptable.
The user is recording sentiments expressed by others, not expressing them herself. Placing them at the top of the page without much context is obviously intended to shock, but I still think it's a way to legimate comment on life at wikipedia. Kappa11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To cut to the chase: the girl who runs www.fisheaters.com linked a lot of Wiki articles to her site, all on relevant pages (for ex., linking to http://www.fisheaters.com/epiphanyeve.html from the entry "Twelfth Night") She made many links like this, all relevant and specific (to specific pages on that site, not to the index page).
A person she had been debating with on a Talk Page for a Catholic entry had it in for her in a big way and alerted his administrator friend who labelled all of these links "linkspam" and deleted ALL of them, getting other administrators to do that with him.
On the RfC the girl asked how can it be linkspam if it's a non-commercial site, if the links are totally on topic, if no bots were used to add links, if no java is required to use site, etc., and she really didn't get a good answer as far as I can see.
She asked how many links are "too many" if they're all relevant and was told by a non-admin "maybe 7."
She asked what would happen if she added 7, but someone else were to add links to the site, too (which others have; she didn't add all of the links mentioned). She got no answer.
As things are, that site is now on some sort of unofficial black list, and almost every link to it is taken down as soon as it goes up. I tried to add a few links back in and they get taken down.
The question: what is the policy about this? How many links are "too many"? What if she does add the limit and others add links, too (her site is a popular one)? How can she get administrators to back off and stop deleting every link to that site?
While I don't know the girl in question, I do know the site and its forum, and I guarantee you she's no "spammer." If you look at the links involved on the RfC (and again, there ARE a lot of them), you will see that none are irrelevant except for one mistake when she or someone who likes that site added a link to a disambiguation page. If you look at the pages at that site, you will see they are extremely informative and useful. It is starting to feel like an anti-Catholic bias around here because lesser quality links to other sites are left untouched while anything to fisheaters.com is taken down. The girl in question is no longer an editor here as far as I know, but I would love to write to her and tell her that things are cool over here and that she can post relevant links if she wants to. Thank you.
Thank you for the information, Elf, but it still doesn't quite clarify what the problem is with links such as these:
Removed a link to the page "Religious Life" [1] from the entry "Nuns."
Removed a link to a page on Twelfthnight [2] from an entry called "Twelfth Night".
Removed link to Epiphany customs [3] from the entry "Epiphany."
Removed another link to the page called "Religious Life" [4] from the entry "Religious Order."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony [5] from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid [6] from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" [7] from the entry "Ex-voto."
Removed link to page on the Day of the Dead [8] from an entry "Day of the Dead."
Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals [9] from the entry called "Requiem."
Removed link to page summarizing Catholic doctrines about Mary [10] from a page called "Immaculate Conception"
Removed link to page on Purgatory [11] from the entry "Purgatory"
These links, and others equally relevant on relevant pages, were removed and labelled "linkspam." So how many is too many? The site is a traditional Catholic megasite and it has some of the best information on these topics out there (I know because I think I've been to every other Catholic site on the internet, and definitely all the big ones).
Is there any way to go on a case by case basis and get administrators to not be defensive about this site just because it got the label "linkspam"? Right now the traditional Catholic view of a lot of these topics isn't being represented at all on the pages in question and every time I or someone else adds a link it gets taken down almost immediately. Thank you. Malachias11100:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not getting a crystal-clear policy, what I will do is go by the spirit of it and add some links to 6 or so pages, referring people to this page in the edit summary. I hope that works. Malachias11101:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't feel you got a satisfactory answer, let me try, since I think I am somewhat selective in allowing some links that others might delete. There is no universal standard. Those editors who have invested the most effort in putting together an article are usually the ones who have the most persuasive "say" in a disputed link. Some editors are quick deletionists but will yield if someone who has already made major contributions to the article has inserted (or re-inserted) the link. Most of us who are invested in specific articles will look at a link and see if it offers anything to extend or complement the contents of the article. Most of the links inserted by anon IP numbers or editors who make no other contributions are real crap, often containing less info than the article does and consisting mainly of advertising. Check the linkspam I just deleted from cryptorchidism for a typical example. I looked at your links and they don't immediately fail the commercial site/advertising sniff test. I didn't compare them to the info already offered in the articles in which they were inserted-- that would be a strong factor in my decision. I didn't judge whether they contained controversial info without making the POV clear in the link, another possible grounds for rejecting a link. I didn't check to see if the articles already had plenty of links. I didn't look to see whether the linked site had other material that might put editors off. Here are some suggestions on increasing the chances that a link would stay.
Don't act like you have a right to insert a link because you found another article with a link that seems worse.
Don't accuse removers of being "anti-Catholic", especially if they have been major contributors to a catholic topic.
Earn forebearance and respect for your opinion by contributing to articles. Your contributions and reputation around here definitely affect the response of other editors to your offerings. People whose major purpose here is link insertion may be quickly labeled as linkspammers and their insertions reverted quickly without anybody even considering the aspects I mentioned above. alteripse01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information, Alteripse! I don't think it was done because someone was being "anti-Catholic" (though I think it started because one user is anti-traditional Catholic). The links had been there for a long, long time without any problem. Then the girl in question got into a really long dispute with User Dominick who started removing links to her site (he called the links you saw "blogs" and everything else). She brought up an RfC against Dominick because he was taking down links so she obviously didn't think she was breaking any rules or she wouldn't have brought it up in an RfC trying to get Dominick to stop. She tried to find out what the policy was, but meanwhile Dominick alerted an admin who saw the the number of links, thought "spam," and the site got "blacklisted" or something. I think they're good links and I think if other editors looked at them, they will, too. And things seem to be easing up some, so there is hope for the Fish Eaters site after all. Thank you for your time, Alteripse. I appreciate it. Malachias11102:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THis is being used to justify linkspamming all kinds of sites with Fisheaters links. The biggest referral for this site was WIkipedia, about 5% of the total traffic according to the Sysop at fisheaters. I am sorry but the policy is clear, sites need to mee tthe WIkipedia standard. Dominick(TALK)12:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Alteripse makes an excellent point...add to the text and value of articles...really, work with the community on article improvement...and folks will probably be far more likely to accept links. KHM0318:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KHM thats the biggest issue. The problem is that we assume we are working on articles to meet the goals of Wikipedia, NOT to twist PoV to a "traditional" Catholic perspective. The position is the narrow traditional position of the fisheaters site. ALl the edits serve that position and that alone. This person seeks to portray orthodox mainstream Catholic positions as novelties, which is hopelessly PoV. Adding the links is the cherry on the PoV twist. The Catholic Church is clear in its positions, the Malachias111 edits that make the Catholic position as something other than what comes from Rome is the issue with the PoV twist. I made a detailed proposition where I thought they were appropriate, Malchais refused to even discuss consensus. Dominick(TALK)18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The site does meet Wikipedia standards, Dominick. You just don't like it because you are a conservative Catholic who presumes to know better than anyone what is "official Church teaching." The traditional Catholic view can be heard just like the conservative view. I am not following you around deleting your links and information; it is you who are doing that to the traditional view -- and the links are clearly labelled "traditional." So please stop what you are doing and think about something else. Malachias11118:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further information
Comment: I believe Malachias111 is being distinctly selective in the above description of this issue.
I found over 100 links; [12] shows 140 links to fisheaters from Wikipedia, and here [13]) you see that there are just over 400 offsite links to that site - in other words, Wikipedia accounts for over one third of external links to this (allegedly MEGA???) site, which has an Alexa rank in excess of 400,000 (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=fisheaters.com), quite aside from the fact that in some cases the links were pushing the "traditionalist catholic" point of view (i.e. the somewhat idiosyncratic POV of the site author). The policy on adding links to your own site is pretty clear: don't do it. Dominick was not the only person involved, several other editors (including myself) took part in reverting what I still see as a substantial campaign of linkspamming. Looking at the Alexa reports for both the old and the new domains, Wikipedia was the primary site linking in and following reversion of the links the site traffic appears to have bombed, leading me to believe that Wikipedia is being used as a core part of the promotion for this very evidently non-notable site, which has, moreover, no evidence to support the idea that it is especialyl authoritative. Note that many of the articles linked only to this non-notable site, not to more authoritative sites such as catholic.org.
See what happened to the old domain name when the links were switched over: [14], and what happened to the new domain name when the 100+ links were removed: [15]. Now call me a suspicious bastard, but that really does look to me as if Wikipedia is the major promotional vehicle for this site. And yes, I do openly acknowledge that this is the festive period and traffic may well be down anyway. I could be reading it all wrong, but it sure looks bad, doesn't it?
What I did was exactly what I'd have done if any other minor site was added to very large numbers of articles for no apparent reason other than that the site owner had some opinion on that subject; Wikipedia is not a link farm or a promotional mechanism. Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt I am not an administrator. Nor had I ever heard of any of the parties to this dispute before the RfC. Nor am I a Roman Catholic, traditional or otherwise. Finally, we had already reached agreement that a few links could go in, but the definition of few seems to be being stretched, and I believe we should put the foot down early before we once again take our apparently desired role as the major promoter of a site with no obvious claim to authority. If the site authors and fans think they have some unique insight to add to these topics, they should be adding it to the articles not spamming their own site.
The debate is already open at the Dominick RfC, and this request looks suspiciously like a case of "keep asking until you get the answer you want". - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
American Football cleanup
Currently there doesn't seem to be a lot of unity in the American Football area. If that's not specific enough, it's because there are several, unconnected area you could get to if you were to search for such a subject. Ideally, they should all flow from one category, right? Ever since discovering the section, I've kind of tried to consolidate things and make them messier, but that was before I noticed the other section talking about football.
Primarily, my beef has been with the pages talking about football positions. There is a category for positions, and then there is a page talking about the defensive team in football which also has an inline discussion of positions.
There's really nobody "to get". We all just sort of fell into this like you have and edit as the muse takes us. You could post your query on the talk page of a couple of main pages related to that subject, or the talk page for a main category for that subject, to see whether anyone else who is interested in that stuff is particularly interested in sorting it out, but I'm guessing that, since it sounds like you've got ideas and enthusiasm, you're likely to be the designated hitter. (Ooops, wrong sport...) Elf | Talk23:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made some additions and edits to the Colgate University page. I wanted to explain why I made the changes I did, but when I click on the discussion tab, I'm told that wikipedia doesn't have an article called "Colgate University," which is obviously wrong, because I just edited the page. How do I create/recreate the discussion page? Thanks!
It didn't say that. It said: "Wikipedia does not yet have a Talk page called Colgate University." which is entirely correct. If you can't create it, click talk in my signature and let me know what text you want to put there. - Mgm|(talk)20:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to nominate an article, you copy the template at the bottom of the nominations section in the edit screen to above the comment line and fill out the details. If you want to vote, you add your signature to the list like all the others did (four tildes ~~~~). "Stay until" shows how long an article will remain listed. They require a certain number of votes in a certain period. But I'm not familiar with those numbers myself. - Mgm|(talk)22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It says on the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive page Articles need three votes per week to stay on the list. The number of votes displayed is the cumulative number an article has received over its tenure on the list. The stays until date is extended in week intervals if it has had three votes in the preceding week. If it is nominated on day 1 and recieves four votes by the end of day 7 (168 hours after nomination), then it is updated to stay until day 14. This check is then performed for day 8 through day 14. If it has received at least 3 more votes it is relisted until day 21, ad infinitum. Every time a new vote is made, the total vote count is updated. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, stays "until margin" is edited only on Sundays? Or it is edited when the article reaches 4, 7, 10, 13... threshold? (I suppose its 3*k+1 because nominator doesnt count, right?) And, if I nominate the article on Wednesday, I put the "stays until" on Sunday, right? And, another one, it article collects 6 votes on week one, does that mean it stays on th elist for one more week or 2 more weeks? Sorry for asking that many questions, but I promise to write plain and simple explanation of this procedure when I understand it, so you won't need to answer these questions any more :-) --Dijxtra12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your first 4 questions, no. It is confusing and, not being involved in the project myself, took me a while to figure out. The problem is that there are two different sets of weeks being talked about. There is the calendar week beginning on Monday and running through Sunday, which is the length of time an article is featured by the drive, and there is the nomination week. Every Sunday, whichever article has the most votes at that time becomes the current article for improvement. The "stays until" date is based on the day that the article was nominated. If it is nominated on a Wednesday, the stays until date will be the date of that Wednesday plus multiples of 7. Under my previous example, Wednesday would be day 1; the first chance it would have to be promoted would be day 5. If it hadn't received 3 votes by the end of Tuesday (day 7) it would be removed on Wednesday (day 8). The votes do roll-over, so getting 7 votes in the first day means that it needs only 2 more votes over the course of the next 20 days. I feel like my explanation is only making it more complicated, but as I am not particularly familiar with it myself, I can't do much better. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using 'Message_box' in a template doesn't work
I'm trying to define a template that uses 'Message_box', not it Wikipedia but in a wiki I've installed at work.
That doesn't seem to work, and displays what I write explicitly. What am I missing? Gil_mo22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to add 2 pictures to madness combat. When I try to upload them it says ".bmp is not a recognized extension" to which I change it to .jpeg and it says "the file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension". The correct extension is .bmp becasuse I made them in paint. What is wrong with it?schyler22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The file needs to be in Jpeg, Gif or PNG format for it to be uploaded. If you are using a reasonably up-to-date version of paint, select File -> Save As and there should be a drop down menu under the file name that will enable you to save the image in one of those formats. --GraemeL(talk)22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what you were doing was manually changing the file extension to match the one requested. That doesn't change the Bmp information inside the file itself, so when the Wikipedia software tries to process the file as a Jpeg, it doesn't work. You need to save the file directly into the correct format, as outlined above. --Kwekubo00:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing all unwritten articles that are referenced
I have two questions.
How am am I limited in adding information about my residence of Center Township, Pennsylvania? What is too far or inherently biased?
Also are there any Legal troubles with me giving up my work to the public domain or letting wiki do whatever they want with it? I'm a minor currently and I think there are some laws against minors giving up certain rights aren't there? Eugman05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In trying to determine what is too biased, try to keep in mind WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As long as you keep personal opinion out of it, you should be fine. Make sure to stay away from advertising, covered in WP:NOT, and overt promotion. As for the legal question, most people here on Wikipedia can't give you legal advice as that would be practicing law without a license. Parenthetically, we aren't even sure if adults are legally allowed to release their work into the PD. It is my personal belief that you can claim to release any rights you wish to, that is to say put any of the release templates on your user page, without consequence. The deal with contracts is that minors can't, wihtout parental consent, enter in to binding contracts. If a minor signs one without a guardian's signature, it is non-binding and invalid. So the worst thing that could happen by your claiming release to the PD would be that it didn't mean anything. There won't ever be any negative consequences to you. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note, in particular, that WP:NOR basically says don't include anything that you know from your own personal experience but rather include only things that you've read somewhere else. The issue is not whether what you say is true, but whether someone else can verify what you say by checking the same source you used (which you should cite, to make this easier). A personal observation of yours, although it might be perfectly true, is not verifiable. Something you read in your local newspaper might or might not be "true", but anyone can verify that it actually is in your newspaper (or on your town's website, or in a magazine, or ...). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User keeps removing speedy delete tag
On Lord Namis, user Godofperfection keeps removing my speedy delete tag. The article is nonsense (and the only google hit for "Lord Namis" is CAT:CSD). Maybe it should have been deleted under cleanup-verify, but no matter what deletion tag gets placed on there, Godofperfection removes it.--Wasabe354309:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather confusing and the template doesn't have a talk page showing how to use it. From some experimentation, passing the parameters like this seems to work:
Produces: Fred Bloggs (2004-07-31), A book, A Publisher
As the date is a single parameter, using something like date=July 31, 2004 doesn't work. Hence the unusual date format used in my example. --GraemeL(talk)11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that seem to be clear enough. I'm figuring out templates can be wonderful things, but I'm just starting to get the hang of them. --◄Pucktalk►12:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning a PD image
I'd like to add an image to Johann Kaspar Kerll. The image is a portrait of Johann Kaspar Kerll, made in 1685-1688. I reckon that the portrait is PD (is that so btw? The author died more than 100 years ago and so did Kerll), but my actual .jpg image is a scan from a CD booklet. Can I still upload the file to Wikipedia and label it PD for the reasons stated (ie. copyright expired) or should I refrain from uploading the picture altogether? (articles about Kerll in other Wikipedias have the portrait but in smaller, blurry/photoshop enhanced versions. All list the images as PD) Jashiin10:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Public domain. Once an image's copyright has expired, simply reprinting the image doesn't make it "start up" again. Any claims to copyright can be considered copyfraud.
When you upload the image, please upload it at as hi-res version as possible, and provide as much information as possible about its source. Also, as it is "free", please upload it to commons:. See Wikipedia:Commons for information about uploading images there. pfctdayelise13:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. The image is on a CD booklet. If the makers of the CD booklet took a photo of the portrait then they would own the copyright and image wouldn't be public domain. Are you sure the image is a reprint, I'm not sure than you can tell?--Commander Keane16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"If the makers of the CD booklet took a photo of the portrait then they would own the copyright and image wouldn't be public domain." No, that's not the case. Taking a photo of a 2d object isn't a creative act, so the photographer (or scanner operator) didn't create a copyrightable work. The only copyright is that of the original 2d work; if the work is uncopyrighted (as would be the case, given the date) then the image isn't copyrighted. This is the case in most first-world countries; it was always the case in the US, and the landmark Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case (which reaffirmed this) really shouldn't have been necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Though remember that they may have reworked the original image for the CD booklet, creating a new and original work - so if you're confident the image is a close copy of the original, you're fine, but otherwise... Shimgray | talk | 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's intended to be a faithful reproduction of the original, it's considered to have the same copyright status. If it's part of a "derived work", that might be a different story, but I didn't get the impression that was the case here. pfctdayelise00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I uploaded the image already (my bad, didn't expect anyone else to respond after I got the first reply) and you can go and take a look if interested: [16]. I'm pretty sure its just a photograph, no reworking done. Jashiin13:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Real Article on Klaus Fuchs?
Is there a real Wikipedia on A-Bomb spy Klaus Fuchs? When I search under his name, I just get an article about "Hackers."
Neil
I don't know what you did, but searching gets me an article on Klaus Fuchs which starts:
Emil Julius Klaus Fuchs (December 29, 1911 – January 28, 1988) was a German theoretical physicist who was convicted of surreptitiously supplying information on the British and American atomic bomb research to the USSR during, and shortly after, World War II.
how many users does wikipedia have from the good old us of a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatboy3 (talk • contribs) 21:37, December 28, 2005
It is impossible to know, at least to us, how many people access and use the encyclopedia from locations in the U.S. Some Wikipedians (registered users/editors of Wikipedia) choose to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_States, although many, like myself, are Americans and do not appear in that category. There are also categories for editing by state. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I no longer view deleted edits of articles?
When I go to [17], there is a link there called "View 12 deleted edits?". I know this link worked a few days ago, why has this functionality been removed? What can be gained by removing people the right to view just the history of old articles and the reasons why? Peter S.00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are still able to view deleted articles, both the content and the edit summaries. We will just have to hope the 750 or so admins we have won't abuse any information they find there. — JIP | Talk11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we leave notes on talk pages citing that talk pages are for serious discussion of changes of the article only or are the users free to talk about anything they like on talk pages (related to the article?) - Andrew Northall02:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can put something like {{Talkheader}} at the top of the page. You can find a semi-uptodate list of templates at WP:TM. Discussion should be about the article, not the subject. Keeping WP:BITE in mind, though, unaggressive OT discussion rarely causes problems. You could maybe leave a gentle reminder on the discussers' talk pages. pfctdayelise02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that reference desk type question on the article's subject are also a good thing on article talk pages if the questioner wants a response from people who worked on the article instead of the big ref desk mass. - Mgm|(talk)10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Donation notice
You know about that donation notice at the top of the screen? The one that says that I can give the gift of knowledge? I do not like that notice there. I would like to remove it. I tried adding this code to my monobook.css file:
"...do not erase..." Really? So, if I make a series of blunders or get particularly heated over an idea and devolve into childish edit warring, I have to bear the mark on my user page forever? TheLimbicOne18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered a bit secretive to quietly edit away negative comments, but it's not something you'd be shot by the community for unless you were patently playing silly buggers (like removing successive level-4 vandal warnings repeatedly on the same day). It might be a good time to tactfully archive the page, though ;-) Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the flames die down–give it at least a few days, if not weeks–then you can archive your talk page. Though you don't have to bear the edit war or administrator warnings on your current talk page forever, it does make it much easier for other editors to understand the course of a conflict (and hopefully to aid in its resolution) if blocks of comments and warnings haven't disappeared. Good editors make occasional errors in judgement; having an embarrassing exchange on our talk page tends to remind us that we need to take care. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Users have made 34,031,641 edits, an average of 11.51 per page, since July 2002.<-From the number of pages link on the main page. Also, I think someone asked a question that had those cats in them. When the question is taken care off, the cats will go away. If not, it's to tell the users what language this page uses.--Rayc05:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the policy on redundant categories? Is having an observatory in Astronomical observatories in Nebraska and then adding the category Astronomical observatories redundant, or helpful? What if it isn't an exact tree, like having Category:University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Category:Lincoln, Nebraska? Thanks!--Rayc05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with this earlier, and you shouldnt have an article link redundantly. for example, we put rapping in elements of hip hop culture, but not in hip hop(which contains elements of hip hop culture cat). so yeah, weird rule but it seems to be good. try to stick to it but dont go OCD.
If you want to insert the picture, edit the page you want it to appear on and type this:
[[Image:Nightstallion-sig1-white.png]]
If you want to insert a link to it, type this:
[[:Image:Nightstallion-sig1-white.png]]
Note the leading colon (:) that stops the image actually showing up. Also note the Image: prefix that is required when linking to all images. Also note you can insert various parameters such as left/right, thumbnail or frame, as well as a caption, when displaying the image. See WP:EIS (Extended image syntax) for help on this. pfctdayelise09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If by "link to a page" you mean that you want to have a person's browser take them to your user page when they click on the image, that isn't allowed. Something to do with the GFDL license as I recall. This has been asked before, you might want to check the other questions on this page or the archives for the specifics. Dismas|(talk)09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Would it still be discouraged in this case, where I'm only trying to avoid having lots of question marks show up for users who don't have one of the few appropriate fonts installed? ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I can't really get it to work when it's in a paragraph of normal text: {{Click||image = Nightstallion-sig1-black.png|link = User:Nightstallion|width = 100px|height = 14px}}, entered like this, results in a rather page-breaking link in the very upper left corner of the page. I can only get it to work properly when it's in its very own line, which makes it rather unusable for signatures. I suspect this can't be fixed easily; if this is the case, then I'll simply have a link to my userpage separate from the image in my signature. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ✉12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know wiki has special markup for dates, so they show up according to local settings.
I recenly merged a page with a big number like 20000. Written in that way, it didn't look so good. I know it's 20,000 in english and american locale settings but for us this number is a round 20.
Is there a way to write numbers so they are adapted to user locale like dates?
Ouch. I see this is getting too much involved for me (I've dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) but I guess I'll just carry on with "hardwriting" the numbers. I'm not well aware of how to point this out to the staff, I hope this is the right thing to do.
Thank you very much for your quick response! MaxDZ818:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change to edit links
Long articles get broken up with headings that allow a user to edit just a small portion of text. That's great, unless I want to change something in the first paragraph (intro section with no edit link). In that case, I have to use the "edit this page" tab and wait for the entire page to load so that I can make minor edit (like avoiding a redirect) in the first sentence. Is there some way that we can get an "edit" link to show up for the introduction of an article if it's broken into sections? TheLimbicOne19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, at the moment there is no link like this however one maybe included in future releases of media-wiki (the program that makes wikipedia work) prehaps someone could suggest this to the programmers. Lcarsdata19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(after section edit conflict) See`user scripts where there is a user script you cna add that puts a section edit link for section 0 (the section above the first heading) on all pages you display. DES(talk)19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thank you very much (I love how fast this help section gets results). Is there any plans add the 0th section function to the main wiki engine? TheLimbicOne19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The user scripts page gives a bunch of info about the scripts but I don't see anywhere that tells a person where to put the script. What am I missing? I would think the instructions would be there as well... Dismas|(talk)20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go yo your user page, create a sub-page called monobook.js and paste the script there. Once you save it, there will be instructions at the top of the page explaining how to refresh your browser cache. Follow them and the script should be active. --GraemeL(talk)20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken out last year because it interferes with the floating boxes and images that people insist on putting everywhere. :) --Brion20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the proper solution there have been to change the floating boxes and images, rather than functionality? I'm one who had to go hunting the edit top script, because i thought this wasn't technically possible for whatever reason. Now I find out it's a stylistic issue? Bah. -- nae'blis(talk)23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I just put in the first script in that list and there is no issue with formatting of the pages or moving of images. There is simply an extra tab at the top of the articles next to the "edit this page" link that reads "0". Dismas|(talk)23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove move template once moved?
I was looking through Category:Requested_moves and noted that many have already been moved. Can the move template be removed once a page has been renamed/moved? Thanks! --Lox (t,c) 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you're looking for. "NoMultiLicensePD" seems contradictory. You can only license works that you could copyright for. If something is in the public domain, it means no one (or maybe, everyone equally) owns the copyright to it. So no one can restrict its use through any type of license. pfctdayelise05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I often keep an eye on the Battlefield 2 article, as it grows very quickly because of the game's high popularity, and often the information added is not appropriate (eg. a recent section was made to promote an amateur league, which I reverted, then later found the same user had vandalised the article in response). Thankfully most people dont worry about me taking out what I would consider trivial or fluff content, but the 'External links' section is a bit harder. A lot of people who run or use Battlefield 2 sites add their respective links, and obviously dont like it when I remove them because they are not notable or do not really contribute to the article. I am certain that if nobody cut the list down from time to time, it would be full of links to people who just want to promote their site, even if they didnt come close to being included in an encyclopedia article. What are the guidelines that I should be using to tell if a link really warrants a place in the article? Thanks :) Remy B07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do I link an entry in English on the en.wikipedia.org site to a German entry on de.wikipedia.org
Thanks
Michael
Edit the article on en.wikipedia.org and add [[de:GermanArticleName]] at the bottom, e.g. for Imagism, [[de:Imagismus]]. I think that's it! Hope that helps! --Lox (t,c) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That will add the interlanguage-wikipedia link to the box which may or may not already exist, below the toolbox on the bottom left (in the default skin). So you should do that for articles which are on the same topic. Those type of links are kind of like category links, in that you can put them anywhere in the page but they always end up in the same place at the end.
If you want to provide a link within an en:w: article to a de:w: article, you do the same thing but with a leading colon (:), ie. [[:de:Imagismus]] --> de:Imagismus. (You can get rid of the de: prefix by using a trailing pipe | .) But this is usually discouraged, although right now I can't really think why - I guess because it is inappropriate to assume anything about the language knowledge of the reader. pfctdayelise14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I vandalize my own Userpage?
Hi, I couldn't find anything on this in the documentation, so I ask here: Can I vandalize my own userpage (or its discussion page)? That is, if there is something on the userpage (or its discussion page) I just don't like, can I just remove it or do I have to use the usual process? For example, does 3RR apply to myself on my own userpage (or its discussion page)? Thanks in advance --Yooden
You can't do whatever you want to your talk (discussion) page, however. You may not delete others' comments, unless they are personal attacks. You may archive your talk page once it gets particularly long, but you are a ways away from that. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, the userpage is solely mine, the talk page adheres to the usual talk page rules, right? Thanks! --Yooden
Actually, I don't think there's any clearcut policy about that. User pages don't normally fall under the 3RR rule, but if you put insulting comments about a user on it and someone removed them, you might well find yourself blocked for violating 3RR. With regard to user talk pages, a fairly-new admin recently posted a warning about something on a user's talk page. The user removed the message four times, and the admin blocked him. The block was undone by a more experienced admin. I don't think there's policy on it, though. To play safe, if you're a user, don't revert your talk page four times. If you're an admin, don't block for it. Maybe you should post the question here. It would be nice to have a discussion that would lead to some kind of agreed policy. AnnH(talk)15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed that this would be already explained somewhere, thanks for pointing it out!
Note that my user page only served as an example, as did 3RR. I think my user page is fine as it is. --Yooden
"Proposed merger" request deletion
If I (or someone else) has merged two articles that were listed on the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page, should I delete the proposal for deltion, or give a reply that I have merged it? -- Mac Davisญƛ.
It's best to just remove merged articles from the list and leave an edit summary to the effect of rm foo and bar - merged or something similar - that way, everyone knows what's happened, and the list is not unnecessarily cluttered -- Ferkelparadeπ11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do after tagging sock puppet? I tried to figure out what action we should take, but only guideline I found (this one) says I should present the case to ArbCom. Now, did I get that right or can I ask some admin to inspect the evidence and block sock puppets? I mean, if the evidence is obvious, why going through such a complicated procedure as ArbCom? --Dijxtra13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it's best to ask a member of the arbcom to confirm your suspicions as soon as possible. They use time sensitive info in their checks. - Mgm|(talk)17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
command to see system configuration utility in windows 2000 server
i want to see system configuration utility in windows 2000 server by using command in run of startbar
No, as long as it's relevant to the project or your work on it, you can pretty much store anything there (except copyvio material and personal attacks). It's download times that can cause problems if you put it all on one page and don't use subpages. - Mgm|(talk)17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My question was whether there is a limit as to how much data one can store, not what kinds of data.
I'm not sure if I should create an account on Wikipedia.
I'm always thinking "What's the catch? Is it like BSB Weird World Fan Club membership, where you have to pay money to keep the membership?"
Tell me, what IS the catch?
Misoka
There's no catch. The only downside I can think of is that editing Wikipedia can be addictive, and creating an account makes editing (and thus giving in to editing) easier. Wikipedia is entirely free and creating an account has numerous benefits for you. In fact, it will obscure your IP address and make you more anonymous in a way, which is a good thing if you worry about privacy. - Mgm|(talk)21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no fees or "catches" of that sort. If you create an account, and use it, other people can see what edits you have made. On the other hand, Your IP address is not publicly visiable, so this can actually increase your privicy. Edits from logged in users are given greater respect by many people. You will get a user page and a user talk page, so it will be easier for other people on the project to communicate with you. You will be able to create pages and move pages, and edit semi-protected pages, none of which can be done without logging in. You don't even have to provide an email address, although you may chose to. You get to set various display and editing preferences. Please register. DES(talk)21:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks! I was just worried that there were hidden fees. thank you very much! Happy New Year 2006! -Misoka
Underscoring
I just did an edit (a minor change to d20 System in case it matters) and now all of a sudden all internal links are underscored rather than simply being a different colour from the surrounding text. I do not want them underlined; I think it's ugly and distracting. I certainly did not knowingly make any such change. How did this happen, and how can I undo it? PurplePlatypus21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Whatever was doing this, it just stopped, as suddenly as it began. An explanation would still be nice, if anyone has one. PurplePlatypus
It's been an intermittent issue for the last few weeks although with most it was that the underscores were now gone. Clearing your cache or closing out the program has been fixing it in the past. Don't know why it does it though, sorry. Dismas|(talk)21:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The slightly longer answer: not only is it free, it's a lot easier than on many other Web sites, such as the average message board. Wikipedia asks for much less information than most other sites. PurplePlatypus23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upon signing up, you must pay a staggering 12,500% (twelve thousand five hundred percent) of the registration fee as tax. The registration fee is $0 US, or €0, or £0. — JIP | Talk17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean there's no tax? --anon
I just said there is a tax, and a rather large one at that: 12,500%. When signing up, the actual amount of money you have to pay as tax is $0 US, or €0, or £0. — JIP | Talk14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What JIP is trying to say that signing up is free without tax. However, this is as close as I could get to translating whatever language he is speaking into plain, normal, understandable English. JIP, you are welcome to help me "translate" for anon. --Misoka
So to sum up: yes, getting a username is free. There is absolutely no charge or tax (but you can donate if you want to to help keep the site running). Getting a username is also very quick and easy, and should take you about 20 seconds - just fill in the four boxes on Special:Userlogin. --Kwekubo20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is there any way to keep for example a serial killer from gaining knowledge about a specific group of people he wishes to target. does wikipedia have any systems of that nature.
It's not clear what you're looking for. "NoMultiLicensePD" seems contradictory. You can only license works that you could copyright for. If something is in the public domain, it means no one (or maybe, everyone equally) owns the copyright to it. So no one can restrict its use through any type of license. pfctdayelise05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried several times to post a photo from my collection to Wiki's bio entry for Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon. It is a JPEG at 72 dpi. After submitting each time, I am informed it is not a "recommended file" type.
If the image has just been 'renamed' to a JPEG (from, say, BMP) then Special:Upload will reject it. Otherwise, it's pretty weird. Can you upload the image to somewhere else on the web (eg putfile) so we can have a look at it? pfctdayelise03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
December 31
Serial Codes
hi, what are serial codes exactly? are they the code you enter in the program to unlock it? and also, what are those sites that give you serial codes? are the codes random, or could someone else use them, so multiple people could use it that they could be tracked?
1.serial codes, in the context of software refers to the codes required to unlock the program, which can either be cracked (illegal), or bought from the company (legal). the sites that give you serial codes will usually give your computer viruses and cookies, the only relatively safe way to get serial codes (aside from in person from someone you know) is to get them from file sharing software like emule in the form of text files.
2.The codes are sometimes random, and sometimes based on specific variables in your computer, and sometimes universally set for everyone. unless the program uses the internet, you cannot be tracked (although illegal downloads can be). Don't break the laws of your country, by the way. This is only information, and you should support good programs by buying them.--Urthogie01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I'm clumsy and forget to put in an edit summary despite making a great edit. Is there any way to tweak my wikipedia interface to somehow make it force me to not enter a blank edit summary. Much thanks, --Urthogie01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user script that add this functionality. Take a look at the list here to find it. Go to your user page, create a sub-page called monobook.js and paste the script there. Once you save it, there will be instructions at the top of the page explaining how to refresh your browser cache. Follow them and the script should be active. --GraemeL(talk)01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I joined Wikipedia in April or May of this year. I've enjoyed helping others with grammar and style, and was rewarded in September with a Featured Article, Dogpatch USA, one that I edited extensively in collaboration with a fellow Wikipedian who researched and wrote the bulk of the article. In October I began writing my first article, titled Adelle Davis, and imported a picture that I found on two websites, which I included in the article. To make a long story short, it was removed a few days ago by Admins, and I have no idea how to 1) find the copyright holder, 2) determine if it is in the public domain, or 3) get it placed in the public domain if I find an owner. Adelle Davis died more than 30 years ago. I need help. --RogerK04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Firstly, congratulations on your work in the 'pedia so far. The learning processes continues evermore, no?
Looking at the article history, I found the image was Image:ADAVIS1.jpg. By going to the logs (at Special:Log, and searching for this filename, I found that the image was deleted by User:CLW with the reason given being: Unconfirmed copyright status for over a week. So far, so good.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy. WP can only use images that are compatible with the GFDL (such as: public domain, GFDL and Creative Commons licenses) *OR* are being used under the terms of fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia:Fair use. Unless you specifically read that an image is PD, or have good reason to suspect so (eg it is very old - 30 years is not old enough), chances are it is under copyright. In that case, WP can only use it under a fair use rationale. Please read the pages on fair use, and then you upload an image provide it with a tag from WP:ICT to avoid it being deleted. HTH. pfctdayelise05:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. The image was circa 1925, and I found it initially on the the website "The Adelle Davis Foundation". My attempts to contact them were unsuccessful, as the site appears to be in disrepair. Adelle Davis is survived, perhaps, by two adopted children, but I know of no way to find them. So I've run into a deadend. I want to upload the image again, re-introduce it to the article, and tag it properly. What tag should I use? --RogerK22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not only for the tallest, highest, longest...
I seem to recall reading a nice section somewhere in the WP: namespace, about how "boring" things are worth writing about too. Like, not just the presidents, but also the vice presidents. Not everything needs a superlative to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I'm not an inclusionist, but I believe this is true.) But reading over WP:NOT, I can't find this section. Does anyone recall it, or where I can find it? TIA, pfctdayelise05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetizing categories
In the article on Leonard Peikoff, should the category "20th century philosophers" go after "1933 births" (because it's a number) or after "Objectivists" (because of how "twentieth" is spelled)? --zenohockey06:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, instruction creep is one thing the category system is in no danger of...but I won't get into that now. Thanks for the tips. --zenohockey04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia profiles
How does a wIKIPEDIA user create a profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFreedom (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 December 2005
if by a "profile" you mean your user page simply click your user ID at the top of any page, or go to User:MarkFreedom. Create the page as you would any new page, and edit it as you might any page. Many users put some information about themselves, wikipedia and non-wikipedia projects that they are intersted in, and their views and viewpoints on their user pages. Many use the "Userbox" tempaltes to indicate their langauge skills or other preferences. But short of slander, copyright violation, or obviousl policy violation, you can pretty much put whatever you want on your user page. DES(talk)06:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
adding a image in wikipedia problem
I was in the sandbox, I tried creating an article. I tried to upload an image but I get an upload warning messing. It is said Upload warning, "." is not a recommended image file format. I tried uploading as GiFF and JPEG file format and I still get the same message. Moreover, I previously uploaded this image outside of the sandbox, it did not get an error message.
Since, I previously uploaded the image, is there a way to link this image to the new article. Or do I have to create the article and use the File:Image name... first and then upload the image. If I did this I can work around the problem mentioned
in the previous paragrah.
Also, another problem is that I have two identical pictures that were uploaded. Is there a way to delete it.
Thank you.
Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).
To insert the image into an article, edit the article and type
To have one deleted, edit its description page and put {{deletebecause|redundant to image FOO.jpg}} (but of course you would insert the name of the other image).
I'm a member of a site that hosts quizzes on a wide range of subjects and categories. Now considering the fact that wikipedia serves to spread information, I was wondering if under the External Links section, a link to the relevant category could be added and whether this would be permissible. For example, in the Harry Potter fandom page,or in a similiar page, a link to a category containing quizzes on Harry Potter could be added. Would appreciate a bit of clarification in this regard from those better acquainted with wiki policy,
Regards Kaushik twin08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines regarding external links can be found at WP:EL. This link sounds like it is more promotional than informative, however. Only links which will add the the encyclopedic value of the article should be added. You might also want to check out WP:NOT. --WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where did my rollback button go?
Just today when I tried to use it, I found that it's gone! Was it removed in the recent software upgrade or what? I still have admin powers, and can protect, unprotect and delete pages (or at least the buttons are there). Only thing missing is rollback. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!10:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's back now... probably some browser SNAFU... But I swear it wasn't there when I looked at my own contribs! Oh well, back to normal. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! Heh. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new contributor, and I'm attempting to put an image into an article. The trouble is that it seems that there are two different images titled Henry_Purcell.jpg, one on Wikipedia and one on Wikimedia commons. I'd like to use the one on the commons, but the one on Wikipedia seems to trump it. Thanks for any help you can give me. Makemi18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they're meant to be the same, the one here should be deleted. In the case where both have the same name and they're different, the local one (not the commons one) has precedence, and there is no way to show the commons one as an inline image. image:Henry_Purcell.jpg links to the one here. commons:image:Henry_Purcell.jpg links to the one on the commons. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, would it be appropriate to change the name of one or both of them (eg Henry_Purcell 001, Henry_Purcell 002), or somehow move the commons one to Wikipedia? (don't know how to do it, but if one can I can figure it out. maybe.)Thanks. Makemi22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution is to rename the one here, but this may require re-uploading it to the new name and then deleting the existing one. I've asked someone who knows more about images if it's possible to rename without re-uploading. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a subtle bug in the code that attempts to "fix up" HTML included in wikimarkup. If you delete the <p> at the end of the last line of the first paragraph it seems to work. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does wikipedia get better
Is there a page that asks and to some degree answers the question of "does wikipedia get better?" I understand that individual articles get better over time, but does this improvement exceed the ratio of crappy new articles made while theyre being improved? That is to say, will wikipedia become more professional as time goes by, or less? There are many aspects to this and related questions, and i'm wondering if theres a page devoted to answering with statistics and the like. Thanks --Urthogie19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Time, frequency of npov tags, and cleanup tags, number of edits, etc. I'm not asking for statistics or even objectivity, I was just wondering if there are opinions on this that approach it without bias, as a logic/math problem.--Urthogie01:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a feature is going to be introduced soon, called "m:article validation" (although I think that's a crap name for it) where editors (and anon users?) can "rate" each version of an article. Like, out of 5. So once this feature has been used for a while, you will have a bunch of stats to work with. pfctdayelise03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the addition of crappy articles may bring down the average quality for Wikipedia articles, it doesn't bring down the quality of already-good articles. Indeed, most crappy articles added aren't noticed in any big way for quite a while. jnothmantalk03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One phenomenon you may have noticed is that it is possible for a good article to be degraded. Look at many of the high-traffic articles and you will see that a significant portion of the edits are insertions and removal of small, poor-quality edits. These are well-intentioned and not vandalism, but are either misinformation or do not represent an improvement to the article when inserted there for a variety of reasons. While poor article can improve over time, I suspect that good ones can be entropically degraded if not defended by knowledgeable editors. alteripse15:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit + thingy
How do you add the + to the edit thingy for a given page. For example, the help desk doesn't have one, but the click here to ask a question link does the same thing. Thank you--Urthogie19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well i know you can do things like make it so the TOC isn't generated, so I was wondering if you could control the "+" in the same way.--Urthogie01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the HD one was removed to try and force people to actually read the intro before adding questions. If you scroll past the fluff, you'll see Click here to ask your question about using Wikipedia, and that does the same as the little "+". pfctdayelise03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reset my forgotten password for my original account (Heywood), but I'm not seeing the email in any of my accounts. Could an admin tell me just the domain of the address to help me track down the account, or would that require pleading to a dev? Thanks--
Heywood22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is a summary redirect? I recently merged Ardas with Ardās, and I installed a redirect at Ardas. I quickly received a message asking to enter a summary redirect but it wasn't specified how. Crisco 149223:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially important to indicate when you're making a merge or redirect in an edit summary, for people who have that page on their watchlist. If you leave it blank, or even worse mark it as a minor edit, they have no real way of knowing that they're now watching a page that's probably not going to change again. All the editing action, which is what they're interested in, is now going on at some new page that they're probably completely unaware of. pfctdayelise04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
January 1
what are slogans on saving earth?
Please read the prominent text at the top of this page that explains that this page is for asking questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Happy New Year. pfctdayelise03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random selection
Hey; I was just wondering how I can use the choose/option tags in Wikipedia. It works in Uncyclopedia, as you can see here. These tags would pick some text randomly from a list and then use that text. A simple example of how they would be used:
<choose>
<option weight=1>This is one option.</option>
<option weight=1>This is another option.</option>
<option weight=3>This will happen more likely than something else.</option>
</choose>
So, there you have it. Can somebody please help me?
I can't see them in action in that link. It just looks like a regular stub template. Are you wanting this functionality for the main namespace or user namespace or something else? pfctdayelise03:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a cleanup template once that said something to the degree of "This article strays from its stated topic. If you can help to eliminate the divergent sections, please do so." This is not listed on the cleanup template list. Anyone have any idea if it exists or if I was having a wikidream? Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. -Scm83x10:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is just what I was thinking of. I probably saw it on TfD, as that is on my watchlist. Too bad it may be gone soon. Thanks -Scm83x23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Afd or not to Afd
(Sigh) I have stumbled across an article for WNEP-TV in the Wilkes-Barre-Scranton area of North-Central Pennsylvania. I found it by looking at the Afd page for today (January 1, 2006) where there was an Afd for WNEP-TV Anchors article. Here is the problem, as best I can state it:
I grew up in North Central Pennsylvania and I am shocked to find an article on a minor local television station in the middle of nowhere (for people who don't live in NCPA). I don't find WNEP-TV Channel 16 to be notable in the least, and certainly not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. I would not undertake to write an article, for example, on Channel 28 news in Wilkes-Barre-Scranton, even though the news anchor was my Battalion Commander many years ago.
I can see from looking at the article that someone has put a large amount of effort into creating the article. It's quite long, and someone before me commented on the talk page that a local station didn't need an article this long and extensive. I agree, if any case could be made that we even need an article on WNEP-TV in Wilkes-Barre-Scranton PA, we certainly don't need anything that long or elaborate.
I am conflicted about this. I don't want to move it afd because of the amount of work that someone has put into this article, but in my mind, it's first, a non-notable subject, and second it's probably close to an advertizement for the television station. And yet again, another voice (yes, I took my medicine today) says, "What's the harm?" in having this article, even if it's non-notable, if it's otherwise well written and formatted?
According to Wikipedia:Notability (broadcasting), which states "All stations with a four letter call sign, with no numbers, may be included.", it is worthy of an article. Though I agree, it's rather detailed and will more than likely become rather inaccurate fairly quickly since newscasters can come and go so rapidly and schedules can change as well. Dismas|(talk)19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I don't yet know where to find all of these documents. Even though it's a proposed guideline, I'll abide. I do note that WNEP has over the years originated some of it's own programming. As to the detail, my feeling is that it had to have been written by someone who works there. Again, thanks; I'll move on to other battles. GestaltG00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On some pages, such as Venus, there is a star next to one or several other languages that the article is also written in. What does this star mean? When is it given? Where is the meta-data page for it (like the one for all general images)? If anybody knows and would like to post, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your help.
Don't know. I just know this was asked before and that was the answer given. After a bit of clicking around, if you click on the interlanguage link for "Suomi" (I don't speak the language so I don't know what language that is) you can see the star listed next to the English version of the article. So it seems some languages do have this feature, not just the English version. Also, if you go to the English talk page, it says that it was a featured article in four other languages. The first two are Czech and German. Those are the first two that are "starred" in the interlanguage list. Dismas|(talk)20:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A browser on Mac doesn't show bullet indentation
A newbie friend entered some lines including a long asterisk line ("*************") used as a separator.
On Windows it showed a multi-bulletted indentation, but on the Mac it looked fine, and so he entered these lines into the wiki. Why was he seeing it differently than expected? Should he be aborting the Mac browser if he wants to wiki? Gil_mo21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this code should do, but I assume it should not be used. To make a separator use "----". "****" appears as nothing in Opera and Firefox as far as I can tell. jnothmantalk03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drowning in the many google lookups for this search, what is the easiest method to convert an MS DOC file (or, HTML) into wiki markup? esp. for tables and other hard-to-format stuff. Gil_mo21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A wiki site I've installed at work is searching in a case-sensitive manner. How can it be configured to ignore the case? Gil_mo21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My user page toolbox contains a link to "What links here." What is the purpose of these links? How are they created? How can they be used by me or anyone else? Halcatalyst22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears for every page, not just your user page. Indeed, it is not very useful on your user page as it will just indicate where you have commented plus a few. But it is very useful for articles, templates, images, etc. It tells you what other articles and pages have links to the selected page, and thus may tell you where a template is used, or gives a rough list of related articles for a given article; it's necessary also with administrative tasks like moving and deleting pages. Does that answer your question? jnothmantalk02:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, thanks. I just wondered whether it had any value in that specific context. For me, it doesn't, which means I can get on to something else. :P Halcatalyst04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help archives - any use?
How can one possibly use the help archives for trying to locate a previously asked question? I even suspect that archive questions don't even show in the Wikipedia search... Gil_mo22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you know approximately when the question was asked, you can search for keywords in the archive(s) selected by date. Indeed, if you know who asked the question, you can simply go to the help desk history and search through a few thousand edits for the relevant username or topic title. Finally, and most flexibly, if the question has been archived for long enough, you should be able to find it through google: Search for "site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:"help desk/archive"" and add any keywords/user names after this. jnothmantalk02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just wish this was written anywhere near the archives.. that would make it more useful and maybe reduce the amount of questions in the help desk.Gil_mo08:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i've been getting into vandelism fighting for a day or two now and theres this one problem that keeps bugging me. Alot of vandelism I see is where a user blanks a part of an article but replaces it with someone positive relating to the article for example a user would blank John Kerry and replace it with "OMG JOHN KERRY ROX". When reverted should the user be given a {{test1}} warning or a {{test2a}} warning? Thanks. - iGod23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather a matter of judgement, based on the content and the vandalism. Personally I very rarely warn an anon-vandal on the first occurance, as so many anon-vandals are one-shot vandals - and I'm concerned that my warning will just annoy an innocent user of the same IP later, and won't be seen by the vandal (who dropped his little turd and fled). So if that was the first recent vandalism coming from that account I'd generally revert it and not warn. If the vandal did another vandalism I'd then warn them. There's a big difference between blanking and leaving nonsense (like this) and just adding an otherwise inoffensive nonsense. In the former case I'd jump straight to a test2 warning, but for the former I'd consider going with a test1. The content of the vandalism (profanity etc.) helps me decide which is the more appropriate. I try to be gentle with first-contact vandals, and most just stop (and a few apologise and stop) and escalate promptly as vandalism continues. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons for the warnings, though, is that they tell other fighters that you've made the warning... So unless the vandal-fighter checks the vandal's contribs (which they should, but don't always), they can't tell that this is the first or second time... And therefore it may be worthwhile to mark for {{test}} even on the first time. jnothmantalk02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when two people try to edit an article at the same time? Say person A opens the edit window, then person B opens an edit window on the same article, they both change stuff, then one saves the page, then the other. What happens?
The second person to save sees an edit conflict warning. The page shows the current text/code in one text box and their text/code in a second text box. The second person can then manually merge the two if they want or just go with the other person's if they were fixing the same things. This is why using section editing is helpful, i.e. the little blue edit link next to section headers. WAvegetarian(talk)(email)(contribs)00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
January 2
deleting parts of talk page not considered vandalism?
Is deleting parts of talk page considered vandalism? If yes, where can I find that written down (as I don't seem to find it)? If not, why? --Dijxtra00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and get those things on your meberpage that tells you if your a partrll person ect?
madcowpoo
Question 1: You edit the person's talk page. This can be found by goingto the person's User (member) page and clicking on the discussion tab. Then click on the + tab. Question 2: I think you are referring to userboxes. You simply add the code for the box you want to your user page.
I have my own wiki and for a couple of week, I uploaded my pictures with no problem. But recently I've been having some problem. I upload the fil, but after I uploaded it, the pictures do not appear in either the image page or the page I embedded the image in. What should I do? --(Aytakin) | Talk01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had a mistake in the link (fixed now). I don't know the answer to your problem, so no I can't really tell you. As for that picture, the original file seems to have been deleted from the server: http://www.iranclub.ca/wiki/images/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg . When you ask for help elsewhere, you might want to point out that the only other images that have done this are Art.jpg and Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg (at least as far as I can see). jnothmantalk05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth it appears the directory the image was stored in doesn't exist. There is a directory called cf, but no ca. Pehaps it got put somewhere else by mistake. You could go to the images directory and then drill down for it, but the problem may be in the configuration of your wiki and that's something I don't know anything about.--◀Pucktalk▶07:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source of Templates
Hi
How do I find out what the origin and purpose of a specific template is?
Specifically the following template is the one in question
{{education}} looks like it is just intended to use as a navigational guide for education-related topics. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Education rather confirms this. It looks confusing because someone has added a {{limitedgeographicscope}} to the template itself, so it's kinda doubling up. I don't think it's really appropriate, so I'm going to remove it and start a discussion on the Talk page about how to improve it.
Or for articles that are too specific to one country when in fact they should be talking about other views too. You can't assume the reader is in the same country as you, so you need to make clear what country an article refers to and if possible you need to include its occurance in other places. For example an article on Approval voting shouldn't only use examples from American politics. Approval voting is also used in Australia and Europe for example. - 131.211.210.1110:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you please try to find out this company back ground because one person called Mr. Charles Benson, Firector International Transacton offering jobs for collection of their invoice amounts from clients. Their address :
Nigerian address info removed
Dear Jawaid Iqbal, please read the information at the top of this page regarding its purpose. Also, some of us are female. cheers, pfctdayelise10:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a complete newcomer to wikipedia and I am trying to set up a page on my local area, which is called Carra (near Bonniconlon, Ireland). I went to "Help:Starting a New Page", typed "Carra" and clicked "Create a new page". However, the page already exists. It is a Redirect to an article on Raffaella Carrà (an Italian actress). Can I just delete the redirect and write my own article, or should I create a link to the Carrà article, or change the name of my article to "Carra, Bonniconlon" or something. Thanks. Baoilleach11:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Baoilleach[reply]
Simply edit Carra and change it from a redirect to your new article. at the top include a note (in italics) that reads "This is an articel about the Irish locality. For the Italian actress, see Raffaella Carrà." I hope that helps. DES(talk)11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I screenshotteed some pictures of a DVD with my laptop and wish to upload them onto Wikipedia. First, is that fair use, and secondly, their bitmap images, and they won't get loaded onto Wikipedia. How can this be fixed? --D-Day14:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The laptop images can be utilized under fair use (and some copyright). Concerning your query regarding the images simply re-save the image you wish to upload under a JPEG classification, allowing you to upload it. -MegamanZero|Talk14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(alternative response after edit conflict) Not all images captured from a DVD can be used under fair use, and certainly not in all contexts. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Images. You also need to save them as JPEGs: this can be dome in recent versions of the Paint program that comes with Windows XP, etc. Open the image in that and go to Save As. There you can choose to save the file as a JPEG. I hope that helps. jnothmantalk14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MMZ, I had already written my answer and (1) was not going to remove a little redundant info just because of edit conflict (2) feel my specifying how to convert to JPEG was not redundant. jnothmantalk14:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What edit conflict..? The dates clearly depict that I wrote my comment 2 minutes before yours. But I'm not trying to start anything, just wanted to clarify. It's all good. :) -MegamanZero|Talk15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the fair use, I forgot to mention, these pictures are from a concert. Does that still qualify, sorry about the confusion. --D-Day14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you posted your comment five minutes before. I could claim something like I went and did research, or that it is late at night and I am slow. Either way, I should learn to click the [edit] button after I do my research =) (Often though, I open up to reply to multiple responses in different tabs at the same time.) jnothmantalk15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I perfectly understand; I have the same habbit of opening up multiple tabs and multi-tasking. I, However, still am victorious by a paltry 5 miutes, my friend. :) -MegamanZero|Talk15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, an edit conflic occurs if user A hits edit, user B saves and user A saves, in that order, but independent of time. And, friend, I think your "victory" is paltry if the question can be answered more thoroughly. jnothmantalk15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I, however, did not encounter an edit conflict on my PC, and the date located on our headers were somewhat too far apart to warrent an "edit conflict". Regarding the elaboration on answers, I believe you did excellent in the area, and I did not call foul on you because of it. Finally, if you wish to respond, continue this conversation on my talkpage. Thanks, -MegamanZero|Talk15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Mac Davis ญƛ.
![[16]](/wiki/Image:Johann_Kaspar_Kerll_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
